The next time a "public interest" group frightens
you with claims that the food you eat, the milk you drink or the
fruit you seek is unsafe, be forewarned that its warnings may
not be based on the wisdom of science but on the dictates of politics
and profit.

That is the lesson to be drawn from a new study, "The
Fear Profiteers: Do 'Socially Responsible' Businesses Sow Health
Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?," published by The National
Center For Public Policy Research and Junkscience.com.

The book examines the dubious record of Fenton Communications,
a Washington D.C.-based public relations firm that is frequently
hired by environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to orchestrate public health
scares that may have no basis in fact. "The Fear Profiteers"
specifically discusses Fenton Communications' central role in
the 1989 Alar scare, the anti-biotechnology campaign and other
1990s health scares.

"The Fear Profiteers" shows that these scares were
either based on gross exaggerations of potential threats or distortions
and that, increasingly, many health scares originate not from
a selfless desire to protect public health, but rather from a
desire to exploit public fear for private gain.

The Alar scare was the first such campaign organized by Fenton
Communications, and it set the standard by which successive campaigns
were waged. Fenton was hired by NRDC to run its 1989 effort to
ban Alar, a chemical growth regulator used by apple farmers. A
NRDC study alleged that Alar could cause cancer, particularly
in children. However, most scientists and the Environmental Protection
Agency judged Alar to be safe because humans would have to consume
absurdly high levels of Alar before it could pose a potential
risk.1 Nevertheless, Fenton persuaded 60 Minutes to do a story
on the questionable study. Predictably, a panic ensued. In a vain
attempt to counter the misinformation, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) issued a statement saying, "The FDA, EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture believe there is not an imminent hazard
posed to children in the consumption of apples at this time, despite
claims to the contrary."2

But it was too late. The Alar panic ruined many apple farmers
and forced Uniroyal, the manufacturer, to withdraw a safe product
from the market.

David Fenton, head of Fenton Communications, said that the
environmental movement learned a valuable lesson from the Alar
campaign. "Usually it takes a significant natural disaster
to create this much sustained news attention for an environmental
problem," he observed. "We believe this experience proves
there are other ways to raise public awareness for the purpose
of Congress and policymakers."3 In other words, environmentalists
don't need facts to advance their agenda. Fear will suffice.

The new target of the fear-monger industry is the new science
of agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural biotechnology is a
technology in which scientists employ genetic engineering to create,
improve or modify plants. Biotechnology holds enormous promise
to help the developing world win its war against starvation and
disease. It has been estimated that biotechnology could increase
food production in the developing world by 25% while a new breed
of genetically-modified rice with higher Vitamin A content could
help prevent the death of 1 to 2 million children each year.4

But Fenton and his clients are hard at work maligning this
technology. One of their targets is bovine somatotropin (BST),
a growth hormone that is naturally produced by cows. Through biotechnology,
scientists manufactured a BST that, when administered to dairy
cows, increases milk production 10-25%. It has been a boon to
farmers because they can get more milk production from fewer cows.
It is also good for the environment because fewer dairy cows mean
farmers require less land for grazing.5 But Greenpeace and other
Fenton clients claim that the FDA "overlooked evidence"
that BST can cause breast cancer in humans when the agency approved
BST in 1993.6

But the FDA emphatically dismisses the charges against BST
as baseless. Calling BST "one of the most extensively studied
animal products to be reviewed by the agency," the FDA said,
"the public can be confident that the milk and meat from
BST-treated cows is safe to consume."7 Likewise, the American
Medical Association strongly affirms the safety of BST, saying,
"Agricultural biotechnology of this kind is the future of
food production in the United States and should not be feared
or impeded."8

It is a sad commentary about the integrity of the environmental
movement that it relies upon slick public relations ploys to frighten
the public about technologies considered safe by sound science.
So the next time you hear another health scare being peddled,
it would be wise to listen to the facts, not the fear.